1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9825/the-case-against-smart-taxes-on-carbon/

The Case against “Smart Taxes” on Carbon

April 22, 2009 by

Today is Earth day, and a week ago we “celebrated” tax day. It is fitting, in a sense, that Earth Day and Tax Day are only one week apart. Those who blame global warming on human activity see taxation as an effective and desirable means of preventing environmental global catastrophe. In a recent publication, former Bush advisor Greg Mankiw has extended an “open invitation to join the Pigou club” by embracing the idea of regulating greenhouse gases with corrective taxes. FULL ARTICLE

{ 53 comments }

DW MacKenzie April 27, 2009 at 5:35 am

As to the global sea warming issue, a study of ocean temps coduncted from 2003-2008 revealed cooling. Sea temps will surely rise at some in the future (as temps do fluctuate), but in recent years they have fallen. This study was conducted by scientists using thousands of buoys that can dive down several thousand feet. I mentioned and referenced this in the article that started this debate. If this study is defective, they please explain. If not, then recent ocean warming is a myth. When I read about this study several months ago I switched from being an AGW skeptic to an AGW denier. The evidence for AGW simply is not there.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that solar activity is the main driver of climate change. With solar activity projected to be weak for the next twenty years (google “solar conveyer”) we could be in for a sharp decline in global temps. It will be interesting to see how long the self-described ‘greens’ cling to their beliefs, as the data goes further against them.

DWM

Martin OB April 27, 2009 at 9:40 am

wuzacon:

Anyway it’s far less “naive” than expecting politicians to invest the tax revenues as they see fit, which is the status quo. Even this corruption-prone setting “works” to some degree, in the sense that some useful things are done with tax money. Politicians only steal and squander as much as they can get away with without much of a social uproar. Taking this power away from them can only improve the situation.

Maybe you mean they would never implement such a distribution scheme.

Well, if you believe that politicians will never accept any kind of restriction of their power, even if society at large is convinced of their adequacy and demands them with such conviction that it’s in every politician’s self interest to embrace those demands, then you might as well abandon all hope of pacific reform.

gene April 27, 2009 at 10:38 am

I agree with Martin, there is no need for this webpage at all if nothing is possible but what already is.

I am not talking tax, though you can call it whatever you want. Harm and injury should be compensated for to those who are harmed and injured. If obvious pollution [toxics, etc] causes harm, then whoever is harmed needs to be compensated and/or the cause ceased. That’s simple. Direct compensation from perpetrator[s] to victim[s]. Free market cost, not collect credits and sell them because you cause “less” harm.

If everyone thinks, as many who benefit from the profits do, that there is no harm from say the production of toxic products, then have at it, why bother at all. We’ll just continue to allow profit from externalization.

As far as greenhouse and carbon, why are we spending so much energy [kind of a pun] with one grey issue when there are hundreds of known toxins and pollutants that are crystal clear?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: